|
Printer Friendly - Subscribe to Page
King County I-722 Complaint
Not an official copy.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
FOR KING COUNTY
CITY OF BURIEN, a Washington municipal corporation, CITY OF CARNATION, a Washington
municipal corporation, CITY OF DES MOINES, a Washington municipal corporation,
CITY OF NEWCASTLE, a Washington municipal corporation, CITY OF SEATTLE, a Washington
municipal corporation, KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 20, a Washington
municipal corporation, WILLIAM P. MALLOW, and SOUTHWEST YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES,
INC., Plaintiffs, vs. KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington,
SCOTT NOBLE, King County Assessor, and STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendants.
No.
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
This is a Complaint by the City of Burien, City of Carnation, City of Des
Moines, City of Newcastle, City of Seattle, King County Fire Protection District
No. 20, William P. Mallow, and Southwest Youth and Family Services, Inc.,
against King County ("the "County"), its Assessor, Scott Noble (the "Assessor"),
and the State of Washington ("the State") to permanently enjoin the implementation
and enforcement of Initiative Measure 722 ("I-722") and to declare I-722 unconstitutional.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff the City of Burien ("Burien") is a non-charter Code City pursuant
to Chapter 35A of the Revised Code of Washington, located in King County, Washington.
Burien would be directly and adversely affected if the taxes, fees and other
charges it adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, were nullified
and required to be refunded, and if the amount of property taxes levied for
Burien for collection in 2001 is reduced below the amount allowed by law.
2. Plaintiff the City of Carnation ("Carnation") is a non-charter Code City
pursuant to Chapter 35A of the Revised Code of Washington, located in King County,
Washington. Carnation would be directly and adversely affected if the taxes,
fees and other charges it adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999,
were nullified and required to be refunded, and if the amount of property taxes
levied for Carnation for collection in 2001 is reduced below the amount allowed
by law.
3. Plaintiff the City of Des Moines ("Des Moines") is a non-charter Code City
pursuant to Chapter 35A of the Revised Code of Washington, located in King County,
Washington. Des Moines would be directly and adversely affected if the taxes,
fees and other charges it adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999,
were nullified and required to be refunded, and if the amount of property taxes
levied for Des Moines for collection in 2001 is reduced below the amount allowed
by law
4. Plaintiff the City of Newcastle ("Newcastle") is a non-charter Code City
pursuant to Chapter 35A of the Revised Code of Washington, located in King County,
Washington. Newcastle would be directly and adversely affected if the taxes,
fees and other charges it adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999,
were nullified and required to be refunded, and if the amount of property taxes
levied for Newcastle for collection in 2001 is reduced below the amount allowed
by law.
5. Plaintiff the City of Seattle ("Seattle") is a municipal corporation validly
formed and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington.
It is a first-class charter city located in King County, Washington. Seattle
would be directly and adversely affected if the taxes, fees and other charges
it adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, were nullified and required
to be refunded, and if the amount of property taxes Seattle may levy for collection
in 2001 is reduced below the amount allowed by law.
6. Plaintiff King County Fire Protection District No. 20 ("the Fire District")
is a special purpose taxing district validly organized and existing pursuant
to Chapter 52 of the Revised Code of Washington, located in King County, Washington.
The Fire District would be directly and adversely affected if the taxes, fees
and other charges it adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, were
nullified and required to be refunded, and if the amount of property taxes levied
for the Fire District for collection in 2001 is reduced below the amount allowed
by law.
7. Plaintiff Southwest Youth and Family Services, Inc. ("Family Services")
is a non-profit corporation validly formed and existing under the laws of the
State of Washington. Its principal place of business is in Seattle, King County,
Washington. Family Services would be directly and adversely affected if the
amount of property taxes Seattle may levy for collection in 2001 is reduced
below the amount allowed by law.
8. Plaintiff William P. Mallow is a homeowner and resident of King County and
would be directly and adversely affected by Initiative 722's shifting of the
tax burden from rapidly appreciating properties to his property.
9. Defendant Scott Noble is the duly elected King County Assessor and is charged
by law with valuing property within the City of Seattle (except for property
valued by the State Department of Revenue (the "DOR")) and determining the levy
limit, setting the tax rates, and determining the total amount of tax on each
piece of property within King County.
10. Defendant King County is a political subdivision of the State and a home-rule
charter county duly formed and existing under the Constitution and laws of the
State of Washington. The County and certain of its officers and employees are
charged with implementing the provisions of I-722 through its elected Assessor
and appointed Treasurer. King County, through its appointed Treasurer, collects,
holds, invests, and distributes property taxes for and to the plaintiff taxing
districts.
11. The State of Washington, through its DOR, is charged by law with valuing
certain taxable property located within plaintiff Cities, as well as other jurisdictions
within the State of Washington, exercising general supervision and control over
the administration and assessment and tax laws of the State, over county assessors,
county treasurers, and all other county officers in the performance of their
duties relating to taxation, including giving order or direction to the county
assessor or any other county officer as to matters relating to the administration
of the assessment and taxation laws of the State and insuring compliance with
RCW Chapter 84.55's property tax levy limits. The State is a proper party pursuant
to RCW 7.24.110.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction by virtue of RCW 2.08.010, RCW
7.24.010, and RCW 7.40.010.
13. Jurisdiction and venue are proper by virtue of RCW 4.12.020(2) which provides
for suit against a public officer in the county where the cause of action arose,
RCW 36.01.050 which provides that actions against a county may be brought in
the superior court of that county, and RCW 4.92.010(1) which provides that actions
against the State of Washington may be brought in the county of the residence
or the principal place of business of one or more of the plaintiffs.
FACTS
14. On November 7, 2000, a majority of votes were cast in favor of I-722.
15. A true and correct copy of I-722 and the official ballot title are attached
as Exhibits A and B.
16. I-722 will take effect on December 7, 2000.
17. On information and belief, I-722 was rejected by Seattle voters, approximately
60% of whom cast their votes in opposition to I-722.
18. King County has adopted a real estate excise tax pursuant to RCW 82.46.
19. DOR, in accordance with its duty to supervise and direct assessors on the
implementation of law governing the taxation of property, has issued advice
to county assessors on the implementation of I-722 ("Director's Advice"). Copies
of the Director's Advice are attached as Exhibits C and D.
20. The Director's Advice to the county assessors has force and effect until
modified or annulled by judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction.
RCW 84.08.080.
21. The State of Washington collects and distributes to cities various sources
of revenue that from time to time are within the State's possession and control.
FACTS PERTAINING TO BURIEN
22. Burien has collected increased taxes, fees and other charges adopted during
the period July 2, 1999, through December 31, 1999, including business
license fees. Burien has provided services in exchange for the increased
charges.
23. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, King County, through its appointed Treasurer,
unless enjoined, will refund upon request that portion of Burien's property
tax that the Treasurer believes reflects a "tax increase" adopted between July
2, 1999, and December 31, 1999.
24. Between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, regular property taxes for
2000 collection were levied for Burien without a vote of its electors. The levy
exceeded by more than 2% the total regular Burien property taxes levied for
collection in 1999, and was the highest lawful levy for Burien during the preceding
three-year period.
25. Burien will during November 2000 certify for levy regular property taxes
for collection in 2001. The amount certified for levy exceeds by more than 2%
both the amount of regular property taxes levied for Burien for collection in
1999 and the amount of regular property taxes levied for Burien for collection
in 2000.
26. By law, the King County Assessor determines and implements the limit found
in RCW 84.55 which affects the amounts of Burien's regular property taxes that
may be levied.
27. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, the Assessor, unless enjoined, will
certify to the county treasurer an amount less than Burien's lawful levy for
collection in 2001 because the Assessor will limit Burien's regular property
tax levy to an amount no greater than 2% higher than its levy for 1999 collection
plus new construction.
28. When determining the amount of regular property taxes levied for Burien
for collection in 2001, the Assessor will disregard Burien's regular property
tax levy collected in 2000.
29. A letter from the Assessor explaining how he will determine the amount
of Burien's maximum regular property tax levy for collection in 2001 is attached
as Exhibit E.
30. As a direct and immediate result of the Assessor's actions in implementing
I-722, Burien will suffer immediate and direct harm for which there is no plain,
speedy or adequate remedy at law.
FACTS PERTAINING TO CARNATION
31. Carnation has collected increased taxes, fees and other charges adopted
during the period July 2, 1999, through December 31, 1999, including utility
rates and permit fees. In some cases, Carnation has provided services in exchange
for the increased charges.
32. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, King County, through its appointed Treasurer,
unless enjoined, will refund upon request that portion of Carnation's property
tax that the Treasurer believes reflects a "tax increase" adopted between July
2, 1999, and December 31, 1999.
33. Between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, regular property taxes for
2000 collection were levied for Carnation. The levy exceeded by more than 2%
the total regular Carnation property taxes levied for collection in 1999, and
was the highest lawful levy for Carnation during the preceding three-year period.
34. Carnation will during November 2000 certify for levy regular property taxes
for collection in 2001. The amount certified for levy exceeds by more than 2%
both the amount of regular property taxes levied for Carnation for collection
in 1999 and the amount of regular property taxes levied for Carnation for collection
in 2000.
35. By law, the King County Assessor determines and implements the limit found
in RCW 84.55 which affects the amounts of Carnation's regular property taxes
that may be levied.
36. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, the Assessor, unless enjoined, will
certify to the county treasurer an amount less than Carnation's lawful levy
for collection in 2001 because the Assessor will limit Carnation's regular property
tax levy to an amount no greater than 2% higher than its levy for 1999 collection
plus new construction.
37. When determining the amount of regular property taxes levied for Carnation
for collection in 2001, the Assessor will disregard Carnation's regular property
tax levy collected in 2000.
38. A letter from the Assessor explaining how he will determine the amount
of Carnation's maximum regular property tax levy for collection in 2001 is attached
as Exhibit E.
39. As a direct and immediate result of the Assessor's actions in implementing
I-722, Carnation will suffer immediate and direct harm for which there is no
plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.
FACTS PERTAINING TO DES MOINES
40. In compliance with the Washington Constitution, relevant Washington statutes,
and ordinances lawfully adopted by the Des Moines City Council, Des Moines has
collected increased taxes, fees and other charges adopted and/or implemented
during the period July 2, 1999, through December 31, 1999, including surface
water management fees, marina moorage charges, business license fees, construction
permit fees, utility occupation taxes, park and recreation user fees, and property
taxes. Des Moines has provided services in exchange for most, if not all, of
the increased charges.
41. By way of example, the City of Des Moines owns and operates a marina with
more than 800 slips on Puget Sound. Des Moines charges its Marina tenants for
moorage services. Less than 25% of the tenants leasing moorage at the Des Moines
Marina are residents of the City of Des Moines. Clearly, refunding moorage service
charges would constitute an illegal gift of public funds in the form of a subsidy
by Des Moines residents for moorage services provided to yacht and boat owners,
more than 75% of whom live outside the City of Des Moines.
42. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, King County, through its appointed Treasurer,
unless enjoined, will refund upon request that portion of Des Moines' property
tax that the Treasurer believes reflects a "tax increase" adopted between July
2, 1999, and December 31, 1999.
43. Between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, regular property taxes for
2000 collection were levied for Des Moines without a vote of its electors. The
levy exceeded by more than 2% the total regular Des Moines property taxes levied
for collection in 1999, and was the highest lawful levy for Des Moines during
the preceding three-year period.
44. Des Moines will during November 2000 certify for levy regular property
taxes for collection in 2001. The amount certified for levy exceeds by more
than 2% both the amount of regular property taxes levied for Des Moines for
collection in 1999 and the amount of regular property taxes levied for Des Moines
for collection in 2000.
45. By law, the King County Assessor determines and implements the limit found
in RCW 84.55 which affects the amounts of Des Moines' regular property taxes
that may be levied.
46. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, the Assessor, unless enjoined, will
certify to the county treasurer an amount less than Des Moines' lawful levy
for collection in 2001 because the Assessor will limit Des Moines' regular property
tax levy to an amount no greater than 2% higher than its levy for 1999 collection
plus new construction.
47. When determining the amount of regular property taxes levied for Des Moines
for collection in 2001, the Assessor will disregard Des Moines' regular property
tax levy collected in 2000.
48. A letter from the Assessor explaining how he will determine the amount
of Des Moines' maximum regular property tax levy for collection in 2001 is attached
as Exhibit E.
49. Prior to the passage of I-722, in accordance with applicable law, Des Moines
incurred limited tax general obligation ("LTGO") debts to finance a number of
projects of special benefit and service to the residents of the City of Des
Moines. Without limitation, these LTGO debts provide financing for the following
projects: 1992 Downtown sidewalk and street improvements; 1992 Public Works
loan; 1993 and 1997 Marina Bonds; 1997 and 1998 State Loans for the Barnes Creek
Wetland/Detention Facility; 1997 Public Works and Parks Service Center; 1997
City Hall renovation project; 1998 and 1999 debts to finance Parks Department
land purchases; and a 1999 Public Works Trust Fund loan for construction of
a new Des Moines Creek Bridge and fish habitat improvements.
50. Most, if not all, of the LTGO debts lawfully incurred by Des Moines include
irrevocable pledges that require the City to establish budgets and levy taxes
annually within the constitutional and statutory tax limitations provided by
law, without a vote of the electors of the City, on all of the taxable property
within the boundaries of the City in an amount sufficient to pay principal and
interest due on any outstanding LTGO obligations.
51. As a direct and immediate result of the Assessor's actions in implementing
I-722, Des Moines will suffer immediate and direct harm for which there is no
plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.
FACTS PERTAINING TO NEWCASTLE
52. Newcastle has collected increased taxes, fees and other charges adopted
during the period July 2, 1999, through December 31, 1999, including
admissions taxes, business license fees, development fees and charges, and surface
water management fees. In some cases, Newcastle has provided services
in exchange for the increased charges.
53. King County, through its appointed Treasurer, unless enjoined, will refund
upon request that portion of Newcastle's property tax that the Treasurer believes
reflects a "tax increase" adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999.
54. Between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, regular property taxes for
2000 collection were levied for Newcastle. The levy exceeded by more than 2%
the total regular Newcastle property taxes levied for collection in 1999, and
was the highest lawful levy for Newcastle during the preceding three-year period.
55. Newcastle will during November 2000 certify for levy regular property taxes
for collection in 2001. The amount certified for levy exceeds by more than 2%
both the amount of regular property taxes levied for Newcastle for collection
in 1999 and the amount of regular property taxes levied for Newcastle for collection
in 2000.
56. By law, the King County Assessor determines and implements the limit found
in RCW 84.55 which affects the amounts of Newcastle's regular property taxes
that may be levied.
57. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, the Assessor, unless enjoined, will
certify to the Treasurer an amount less than Newcastle's lawful levy for collection
in 2001 because the Assessor will limit Newcastle's regular property tax levy
to an amount no greater than 2% higher than its levy for 1999 collection plus
new construction.
58. When determining the amount of regular property taxes levied for Newcastle
for collection in 2001, the Assessor will disregard Newcastle's regular property
tax levy collected in 2000.
59. A letter from the Assessor explaining how he will determine the amount
of Newcastle's maximum regular property tax levy for collection in 2001 is attached
as Exhibit E.
60. As a direct and immediate result of the Assessor's actions in implementing
I-722, Newcastle will suffer immediate and direct harm for which there is no
plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.
FACTS PERTAINING TO SEATTLE
61. Seattle has collected increased taxes, fees and other charges adopted during
the period July 2, 1999, through December 31, 1999, including utility rates
(water, electorcity, wastewater, and solid waste), business and occupation tax,
Seattle Center facility charges, and user fees for parks. In some if not most
cases, Seattle has provided services in exchange for the increased charges.
62. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, King County, through its appointed Treasurer,
unless enjoined, will refund upon request that portion of Seattle's property
tax that the Treasurer believes reflects a "tax increase" adopted between July
2, 1999, and December 31, 1999.
63. Between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, Seattle, levied its regular
property taxes for 2000 collection. The levy was approved by a vote of the people
and exceeded by more than 2% the total regular property taxes Seattle levied
for collection in 1999, and was Seattle's highest lawful levy during the preceding
three-year period.
64. Seattle has levied and will further levy in November 2000 regular property
taxes for collection in 2001. The amount of the levy does not exceed the taxing
authority approved by the voters on November 7, 2000, when a majority of Seattle
electors voted in favor of Proposition 1, although the levy exceeds by more
than 2% both the amount of regular property taxes Seattle levied for collection
in 1999 and the amount of regular property taxes Seattle levied for collection
in 2000.
65. By law, the King County Assessor determines and implements the limit found
in RCW 84.55 which affects the amounts of Seattle's regular property taxes that
may be levied.
66. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, the Assessor, unless enjoined, will
certify to the county treasurer an amount less than the lawful levy Seattle
has made and will make for collection in 2001 because the Assessor will limit
Seattle's regular property tax levy to an amount no greater than 2% higher than
its levy for 1999 collection plus new construction.
67. When determining the amount of regular property taxes Seattle is allowed
to levy for collection in 2001, the Assessor will disregard Seattle's regular
property tax levy collected in 2000 in spite of the fact that those taxes were
approved by Seattle voters and so are not within the purview of Section 1 of
I-722, will disregard the fact that Seattle voters have approved the 2001 levy
so that the levy is not limited by I-722, and, in any case, will fail to take
into account that Seattle levied its property taxes for collection in 2001 before
I-722's effective date.
68. A letter from the Assessor explaining how he will determine the amount
of regular property tax Seattle is allowed to levy for collection in 2001 is
attached as Exhibit E.
69. As a direct and immediate result of the Assessor's actions in implementing
I-722, Seattle will suffer immediate and direct harm for which there is no plain,
speedy or adequate remedy at law.
FACTS PERTAINING TO THE FIRE DISTRICT
70. The Fire District has collected increased taxes, fees and other charges
adopted during the period July 2, 1999, through December 31, 1999. The Fire
District has provided services in exchange for the increased taxes, fees and
other charges.
71. By law the King County treasurer seves as the Fire District's treasurer.
King County, through its appointed Treasurer, unless enjoined, will refund upon
request that portion of the Fire District's property tax and other charges that
the Treasurer believes reflects a "tax increase" adopted between July 2, 1999,
and December 31, 1999.
72. Between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, regular property taxes for
2000 collection were levied for the Fire District. The levy exceeded by more
than 2% the total regular the Fire District property taxes levied for collection
in 1999, and was the highest lawful levy for the Fire District during the preceding
three-year period.
73. The Fire District will before December 7, 2000, certify for levy regular
property taxes for collection in 2001. The amount certified for levy exceeds
by more than 2% both the amount of regular property taxes levied for the Fire
District for collection in 1999 and the amount of regular property taxes levied
for the Fire District for collection in 2000.
74. The King County Assessor by law determines and implements the limit found
in RCW Chapter 84.55 which affects the amount of the Fire District's regular
property taxes that may be levied.
75. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, the Assessor, unless enjoined, will
certify to the Treasurer an amount less than the Fire District's lawful levy
for collection in 2001 because the Assessor will limit the Fire District's regular
property tax levy to an amount no greater than 2% higher than its levy for 1999
collection plus new construction.
76. When determining the amount of regular property taxes levied for the Fire
District for collection in 2001, the Assessor will disregard the Fire District's
regular property tax levy collected in 2000.
77. A letter from the Assessor explaining how he will determine the amount
of the Fire District's maximum regular property tax levy for collection in 2001
is attached as Exhibit E.
78. As a direct and immediate result of the Assessor's actions in implementing
I-722, the Fire District will suffer immediate and direct harm for which there
is no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.
FACTS PERTAINING TO MR. MALLOW
79. Mr. Mallow owns property located in Seattle.
80. From 1999 to 2000, Mr. Mallow's property value increased at rates less
than property owned by other taxpayers during that period.
81. By law, the Assessor is charged with determining, calculating, and fixing
the rate percent of property taxes for state, county, and taxing district purposes,
extending the rates upon the tax rolls, and certifying the tax rolls to the
King County Treasurer.
82. The King County Treasurer is charged with collecting the property tax certified
to him by the Assessor.
83. Pursuant to the Director's Advice, the Assessor, unless enjoined, will
certify to the Treasurer and the Treasurer will collect an incorrectly high
amount of tax due on Mr. Mallow's property because the Assessor will calculate
the tax rates by disregarding the portion of value of each property within King
County and Seattle which exceeds an amount equal to the assessed value of the
property on January 1, 1999, plus 2%.
84. As a direct and immediate result of the Assessor's and Treasurer's actions
in implementing I-722, Mr. Mallow will incur immediate and direct harm for which
there is no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.
FACTS PERTAINING TO FAMILY SERVICES
85. Family Services provides counseling to at-risk families and children, operates
an alternative school for children who are unsuccessful in the public school
system which offers GED courses, job training, and teen parenting classes, and
offers mental health counseling, programs for disabled youth, and resource coordination
for high-risk families, recent immigrants, and children.
86. Family Services receives half of its annual funding from Seattle in the
form of contracts for services for the high-risk population that it serves.
87. On information and belief, a reduction in Seattle's authorized levy and
requiring Seattle to refund taxes will reduce monies available to fund the contracts.
88. A reduction in such funding would require Family Services to reduce staff
and reduce the services available to its clientele.
89. As a result of the Assessor's reduction in the amount of Seattle's levy,
Family Services will suffer an immediate and direct harm for which there is
no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - SINGLE SUBJECT VIOLATION
90. I-722 contains multiple subjects including: (1) a repeal of unspecified
and unidentified tax and fee increases enacted between July 2, 1999, and December
31, 1999, which subject is discrete and not continuing in nature; (2) a conditional
exemption of motor vehicles from the property tax; and (3) new procedures for
calculating property taxes and tax levy limits, which have a continuing effect.
91. None of the separate measures encompassed by the various sections of I-722
is necessary to implement the others, and they are not rationally unified, in
violation of Article II, Section 19, of the Washington Constitution.
92. I-722's limit on individual property valuation growth is not reflected
in the title, as required by Article II, Section 19, of the Washington Constitution.
93. A controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding the constitutionality
of I-722, which adjudication by this court would definitively resolve.
94. Plaintiffs are entitled to a Declaratory Judgment that I-722 violates Article
II, Section 19, of the Washington Constitution in that it contains more than
a single subject and its contents are not reflected in its title, and to an
injunction prohibiting Defendants from implementing I-722.
SEconD CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF TAX UNIFORMITY REQUIREMENT
95. Article VII, Section 1, of the Washington Constitution requires that all
taxes on property shall be uniform within a class and provides that all real
property constitutes one class.
96. Subsection 3(1) of I-722 purports to limit the value on which property
taxes are paid to the "1999 valuation level" plus the lesser of 2% per year
or inflation, regardless of the true and fair value of the property.
97. Subsection 3(2) of I-722 is void for vagueness. The Assessor has, however,
interpreted Subsection 3(2) so as to require new construction to be added to
the tax rolls at a value equal to that of a similar property that existed in
1999 or before, plus an increase in value of 2% or inflation (whichever is less)
per year from 1999 to the year of construction.
98. DOR is charged by Chapter 84.12 RCW with assessing the value of inter-county
operating properties of certain utilities and public service companies (such
as railroads) and apportioning those values among the various counties. DOR
will, unless enjoined, assess the inter-county operating properties of utility
and public service companies at less than their fair market values, will apportion
those values among the several counties on a disproportionate and disuniform
basis, and the Assessor will spread the taxes on the rolls using the value reported
to it by DOR, all because of Section 3 of I-722. Counties in which an improperly
low amount of state-assessed operating property is placed on the assessment
rolls will have to spread the burden of their property taxes onto other property
in those counties, contrary to Constitution Article VII, Section 1, of the Washington
Constitution and contrary to the intent of Chapter 84.12 RCW.
99. If allowed to take effect, the value limitations in Section 3 of I-722
will result in higher assessment ratios for taxpayers in slow- or no-growth
areas than for properties experiencing rapid appreciation, creating an unconstitutional
disuniformity within the class of real property.
100. Under Section 3 of I-722, Mr. Mallow's property will be subject to a higher
amount of tax per dollar of true and fair value than will other real property
within the same taxing jurisdictions.
101. A controversy exists between Mr. Mallow and Defendants regarding the validity
of I-722 insofar as it shifts the property tax burden from rapidly appreciating
to slower appreciating properties such as Mr. Mallow's, which adjudication by
this court would definitively resolve.
102. Mr. Mallow, therefore, seeks a declaration that I-722 violates Article
VII, Section 1, of the Washington Constitution and an injunction preventing
Defendants from implementing I-722.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - REFUNDS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL GIFT OF PUBLIC FUNDS
103. Article VIII, Section 7, of the Washington Constitution prohibits gifts
of public funds.
104. During the period July 2, 1999 through December 31, 1999, and in accordance
with governing law, the Plaintiff Cities and municipal jurisdictions adopted
and collected various revenue increases in order to provide public services
and maintain general governmental operations. Consistent with the Washington
Constitution, applicable statues and ordinances, these increases did not require
a vote of local electors. Further, none of the Plaintiff Cities' increases were
repealed through a vote of the local electors in the time and manner as provided
in some of the Plaintiff Cities' respective municipal codes. Once collected,
these tax and fee increases became public funds used to finance goods and services
provided by each governmental entity. Accordingly, any refund of such increases
would constitute a gift of public funds in contravention of Article VIII, Section
7, of the Washington Constitution.
105. Furthermore, the repeal of particular local taxes validly enacted violates
Article 11, Section 12, of the Washington Constitution.
106. Section 1 of I-722 purports to require that tax and fee increases validly
adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, be refunded.
107. DOR has advised county assessors that they are "appropriate" officers
for making refunds of previously-collected property taxes for taxing jurisdictions
within their counties, including by subtracting amounts to be refunded from
the taxes that would otherwise be collected in 2001.
108. King County, through its appointed Treasurer, unless enjoined, will refund
upon request that portion of property tax, and on information and belief will
refund other money belonging to the Fire District, that the Treasurer believes
reflects a "tax increase" adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999.
109. A controversy exists between Burien, Carnation, Des Moines, Newcastle,
Seattle, the Fire District and Family Services and Defendants regarding the
validity of I-722 insofar as it purports to require the refund of "tax increases"
adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, which adjudication by this
court would definitively resolve.
110. Burien, Carnation, Des Moines, Newcastle, Seattle, the Fire District and
Family Services, therefore, seek a declaration that Section 1 of I-722 violates
Article VIII, Section 7, of the Washington Constitution and an injunction preventing
Defendants from implementing I-722.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - AMENDMENT WITHOUT PROPER REFERENCE
111. Article II, Section 37, of the Washington Constitution prohibits enactment
of legislation that revises or amends other acts without setting them forth
at full length.
112. The operation of I-722 as interpreted by the DOR will effectively revise
and amend among other laws, among them RCW 84.55.010, which provides that the
regular property tax levy limit is determined from the highest amount of tax
lawfully levied during the last three years, RCW 84.48.080, which provides that
the DOR shall equalize assessed valuation to true and fair value, RCW 84.40.030
and 84.40.040, which require the assessors to place property on assessment rolls
at 100% of its true and fair value, RCW Chapters 84.68. and 84.69, which provide
comprehensive rules for property tax refunds. RCW 84.52.030, which requires
that levies be made on all taxable property; RCW 84.52.040 which requires that
taxable value is assessed value, and RCW 35.92.010, which requires utility rates
to equal costs.
113. I-722 fails to set forth the existing statutes that are affected, nor
does it show how they are impacted.
114. A straightforward determination of the scope of rights or duties under
the above-referenced statutes would be rendered erroneous by I-722.
115. A controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding the effect
of I-722 on Plaintiffs' rights and duties under existing laws, which adjudication
by this court would definitively resolve.
116. Plaintiffs, therefore, seek a declaration that I-722 violates Article
II, Section 37, of the Washington Constitution and an injunction prohibiting
Defendants from implementing I-722.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION -- EX POST FACTO REPEAL IMPERMISSIBLY IMPAIRS CONTRACTS
117. Article 1, Section 23, of the Washington Constitution prohibits laws impairing
the obligation of contracts.
118. Seattle, Carnation, and Newcastle increased utility charges between July
2, 1999, and December 31, 1999. Newcastle increased surface water management
fees between those dates, and Seattle increased Seattle Center facility use
charges and parks use fees between those dates.
119. Seattle, Carnation, and Newcastle each has provided services to users
and ratepayers in exchange for its increased charges.
120. I-722's repeal of utility and other charges and fees and the requirement
that the charges be refunded substantially and unreasonably impairs the contracts
between Seattle and its users and ratepayers, Carnation and its users and ratepayers,
and Newcastle and its users and ratepayers.
121. Such impairment is not necessary to achieve a legitimate public purpose.
122. A controversy exists between Seattle and Defendants, Carnation and Defendants,
and Newcastle and Defendants regarding the validity of I-722 insofar as it purports
to require Seattle, Carnation, and Newcastle to refund taxes, fees, and other
charges adopted between July 2, 1999, and December 31, 1999, which adjudication
by this court would definitively resolve.
123. Seattle, Carnation, and Newcastle, therefore, seek a declaration that
I-722 violates Article I, Section 23, of the Washington Constitution and an
injunction prohibiting Defendants from implementing I-722.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION - UNLAWFUL CALCULATION OF LEVY LIMIT
124. RCW 84.55.010 authorizes levies of regular property taxes in an amount
equal to the limit factor multiplied by the highest amount of regular property
taxes lawfully levied in the three most recent years.
125. On November 2, 1999, Seattle's voters approved, pursuant to RCW 84.55.050
and Seattle Ordinance 119522, a proposition authorizing Seattle's total regular
property tax levy for collection in 2000 to exceed the otherwise-applicable
limit in RCW 84.55.010, up to a regular tax rate of $3.52/$1000 of assessed
value.
126. In 1999, regular property taxes for Burien, Carnation, Newcastle, and
the Fire District were levied in an amount equal to the limit factor multiplied
by the highest amount of regular property taxes levied in the previous three
years.
127. The property tax levied in 1999 for collection in 2000 is the highest
amount of regular property taxes legally levied for Carnation, Burien, Newcastle
and Seattle in the three most recent years.
128. The inflation rate as determined by the DOR for use in determining the
limit factor under Chapter 84.55 RCW for taxes to be collected in 2001 is 2.61%.
129. Based on the Director's Advice, the Assessor intends to reduce Seattle's
levy for 2001 collection to 102% of the amount of regular property taxes Seattle
levied for collection in 1999, rather than allow 106% of the amount of regular
property taxes levied for collection in 2000.
130. Based on the Director's Advice, the Assessor intends to set Burien's levy
for 2001 collection at 102% of the amount of regular property taxes levied for
Burien for collection in 1999, rather than allow 106% of the amount of regular
property taxes levied for Burien for collection in 2000.
131. Based on the Director's Advice, the Assessor intends to set Carnation's
levy for 2001 collection to 102% of the amount of regular property taxes levied
for Carnation for collection in 1999, rather than allow 106% of the amount of
regular property taxes levied for Carnation for collection in 2000.
132. Based on the Director's Advice, the Assessor intends to set Newcastle's
levy for 2001 collection to 102% of the amount of regular property taxes levied
for Newcastle for collection in 1999, rather than allow 106% of the amount of
regular property taxes levied for Newcastle for collection in 2000.
133. Based on the Director's Advice, the Assessor intends to set the Fire District's
levy for 2001 collection to 102% of the amount of regular property taxes levied
for the Fire District for collection in 1999, rather than allow 106% of the
amount of regular property taxes levied for the Fire District for collection
in 2000.
134. A controversy exists between Burien, Carnation, Newcastle, Seattle and
the Fire District and Defendants regarding the application of I-722 to their
regular property tax levies for collection in 2000, which adjudication by this
court would definitively resolve.
135. Burien, Carnation, Newcastle, Seattle and the Fire District, therefore,
each seek a declaration that the limit imposed by Chapter 84.55 RCW on regular
property taxes levied for collection in 2001 and for Carnation and Newcastle
is 106% of the regular property taxes levied for 2000 collection, and for Burien,
Des Moines, Seattle and the Fire District may be, by appropriate vote of their
respective legislative bodies, 106%; and an injunction prohibiting the Assessor
from implementing I-722 so as to limit the levies to 102% of each city's levy
for 1999 collection.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - UNEQUAL TREATMENT
136. Article I, Section 12, of the Washington Constitution provides that no
law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation
other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall
not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.
137. Section 3 of I-722 treats persons differently depending upon the rate
at which their property appreciates, yet does not define a class.
138. There is no reasonable basis for the disparity in treatment among property
owners based on varying rates of property appreciation.
139. A controversy exists between Mr. Mallow and Defendants regarding the validity
of the disparate treatment created by Section 3 of I-722 , which adjudication
by this court would definitively resolve.
140. Mr. Mallow, therefore, seeks a declaration that Section 3 of I-722 creates
an invalid classification in violation of Article I, Section 12, of the Washington
Constitution and an injunction prohibiting Defendants from implementing I-722.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION - IMPROPER EQUALIZATION OF STATE LEVY
141. DOR has not indicated it will use properties' true and fair values when
acting under RCW 84.48.080 to spread the obligation to pay the State's property
tax levy among the various counties of the state. Under that statute, and under
Article VII, Section 1, of the Washington Constitution, the state levy must
be apportioned to the various counties (and then by the county assessors to
the various properties within the counties) in proportion to the proper assessed
value and the true and fair value of property within those counties. If DOR
applies I-722 so as to use any basis for spreading the state tax levy other
than proper assessed values that are uniformly proportioned to true and fair
value, that will violate the Constitution and RCW 84.48.080, and may result
in a disproportionate burden on properties such as Mr. Mallow's which is appreciating
more slowly than average.
142. Because DOR has not removed the uncertainty as to whether it will use
an improper method of apportioning the state tax levy, a controversy exists
such that Plaintiffs seek a declaration that DOR must equalize the state property
tax levy according to the true and fair value of property in each of the counties
of the state.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the court:
1. Declare that I-722 in its entirety violates the Washington Constitution
and therefore is null and void;
2. Permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing or otherwise implementing any
of the provisions of I-722;
3. Award plaintiffs their litigation costs; and
4. Award such other and different relief as the court deems just and appropriate.
DATED this ______ day of November, 2000.
MARK H. SIDRAN
Seattle City Attorney
By: ______________________________
Cynthia Unwin Seu, WSBA #26831
Assistant City Attorney
Attorneys for Plaintiff The City of Seattle
MICHAEL WEIGHT
Burien City Attorney
By:__________________________
Michael Weight, WSBA #11643
415 SW 150th Street
Burien, Washington 98166-1973
(206) 248-5535
Attorney for Plaintiff The City of Burien
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE, PLLC
By: _____________________________
Greg Rubstello, WSBA #6271
1601 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100
Seattle, Washington 98101-1686
(206) 447-7000
Attorneys for Plaintiff The City of Carnation
GARY N. McLEAN
Des Moines City Attorney
By: ______________________________
Gary N. McLean, WSBA #18992
21630 11th Avenue S
Des Moines, Washington 98198-6317
(206) 870-6553
Attorney for Plaintiff The City of Des Moines
INSLEE BEST DOEZIE & RYDER
By:_______________________________
Rod P. Kaseguma, WSBA #6622
Michael P. Ruark, WSBA #2220
777 108th Avenue NE, Suite 1900
Bellevue, Washington 98009-9016
(425) 455-1234
Attorneys for Plaintiff The City of Newcastle
SNURE LAW OFFICES
By:_____________________
Clark B. Snure, WSBA #3070
Brian K. Snure, WSBA #23275
22513 Marine View Drive, Suite 201
Des Moines, Washington 98198
(206) 824-5630
Attorney for Plaintiff King County Fire Protection District No. 20
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
By: ________________________________
Michele Radosevich, WSBA #24282
2600 Century Square
1501 Fourth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101-1688
(206) 622-3150
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Southwest Youth and Family Services, Inc. and
William P. Mallow
|
